Browsing by Author "Jones, Jennifer M."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Connecting breast cancer survivors for exercise: protocol for a two-arm randomized controlled trial
    (2021-10-14) Smith-Turchyn, Jenna; McCowan, Michelle E.; O’Loughlin, Erin; Fong, Angela J.; McDonough, Meghan H.; Santa Mina, Daniel; Arbour-Nicitopoulos, Kelly P.; Trinh, Linda; Jones, Jennifer M.; Bender, Jackie L.; Culos-Reed, S. N.; Tomasone, Jennifer R.; Vani, Madison F.; Sabiston, Catherine M.
    Abstract Background Peer-based exercise interventions that cultivate new opportunities for support with a fellow cancer survivor may result in increased exercise volume. It is not clear whether adding qualified exercise professional (QEP) support to peer-based interventions improves health outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to determine whether breast cancer survivor (BCS) dyads who receive 10 weekly sessions of virtually delivered QEP support have improved outcomes compared to BCS dyads who do not receive QEP support. Methods Participants Adult BCS with medical clearance for exercise, who have an internet-connected device, and currently engage in < 150 min of moderate-intensity exercise per week. Intervention BCS will be matched using evidence-based criteria. The intervention group will receive dyadic exercise information sessions and a program tailored by a QEP for 10 weeks (intervention period) and have access to the QEP for an additional 4 weeks (tapering period). The control will not receive any QEP support. Outcomes The primary outcome is post-intervention self-reported exercise volume. Secondary outcomes include device-assessed exercise volume (i.e., Fitbit), social support, and health-related quality of life. Randomization 108 participants, matched in dyads, will be randomized 1:1 to the MatchQEP or Match groups using a web-based scheme. Statistical analysis Outcomes will be measured at baseline, post-intervention, post-tapering, and at 12 weeks post-intervention follow-up. Discussion The findings from this RCT will determine if matched BCS dyads who receive 10 weeks of virtually delivered QEP support have higher levels of self-report and device-measured exercise, social support, and health related quality of life compared to matched dyads without QEP-delivered exercise guidance. To our knowledge this will be the first study to assess the combined effect of peer- and QEP support on exercise volume. Project findings will inform and optimize intervention methods aimed to increase exercise among BCS through accessible exercise supports. Trial Registration: The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (study identifier: NCT04771975, protocol Version Number: 2, date: July 22, 2021).
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Use of implementation mapping to develop a multifaceted implementation strategy for an electronic prospective surveillance model for cancer rehabilitation
    (2024-10-01) Lopez, Christian J.; Neil-Sztramko, Sarah E.; Tanyoas, Mounir; Campbell, Kristin L.; Bender, Jackie L.; Strudwick, Gillian; Langelier, David M.; Reiman, Tony; Greenland, Jonathan; Jones, Jennifer M.
    Abstract Background Electronic Prospective Surveillance Models (ePSMs) remotely monitor the rehabilitation needs of people with cancer via patient-reported outcomes at pre-defined time points during cancer care and deliver support, including links to self-management education and community programs, and recommendations for further clinical screening and rehabilitation referrals. Previous guidance on implementing ePSMs lacks sufficient detail on approaches to select implementation strategies for these systems. The purpose of this article is to describe how we developed an implementation plan for REACH, an ePSM system designed for breast, colorectal, lymphoma, and head and neck cancers. Methods Implementation Mapping guided the process of developing the implementation plan. We integrated findings from a scoping review and qualitative study our team conducted to identify determinants to implementation, implementation actors and actions, and relevant outcomes. Determinants were categorized using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), and the implementation outcomes taxonomy guided the identification of outcomes. Next, determinants were mapped to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy of strategies using the CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool. The list of strategies produced was refined through discussion amongst our team and feedback from knowledge users considering each strategy’s feasibility and importance rating via the Go-Zone plot, feasibility and applicability to the clinical contexts, and use among other ePSMs reported in our scoping review. Results Of the 39 CFIR constructs, 22 were identified as relevant determinants. Clinic managers, information technology teams, and healthcare providers with key roles in patient education were identified as important actors. The CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool resulted in 50 strategies with Level 1 endorsement and 13 strategies with Level 2 endorsement. The final list of strategies included 1) purposefully re-examine the implementation, 2) tailor strategies, 3) change record systems, 4) conduct educational meetings, 5) distribute educational materials, 6) intervene with patients to enhance uptake and adherence, 7) centralize technical assistance, and 8) use advisory boards and workgroups. Conclusion We present a generalizable method that incorporates steps from Implementation Mapping, engages various knowledge users, and leverages implementation science frameworks to facilitate the development of an implementation strategy. An evaluation of implementation success using the implementation outcomes framework is underway.